"Forget 'inequality'. The problem is 'Extremity' in economic distribution."

Some inequality is necessary in economic systems. Even if communists could get their way and everyone was at the same economic level it wouldn't commensurately increase happiness or productivity. Research on lottery winners and victims of crippling accidents shows that after one year nearly all return to their previous happiness set-point. Humans have chemically set happiness equilibriums. Where more money makes a lasting difference on happiness is in bringing people out of poverty. Being in poverty depresses happiness well beyond individual set-points. Consequently, capitalism's "inequality problem" is only a material issue when there is poverty that can be alleviated without having a noticeable effect on the wealthy that can relieve that poverty. My thought is that we should forget talk about "wealth disparity" or "wealth inequality". Those terms evoke unappealing visions of communism. The problem is extreme wealth disparity or what I like to call "Extremity". Pharoahs, Kings, Czars; this kind of disparity is ripe for revolution. Regular old inequality is not only acceptable but necessary to create incentives for hard work and innovation. Extremity is what is dangerous.

"Corpania’s Theory of Productive Wealth (P*Wealth)”

"Corpania’s Theory of Productive Wealth (P*Wealth)” Karl Marx got it wrong but for some of the right reasons. Capitalism is more efficient and productive than a totalitarian state (regardless of its intentions). Capitalism’s best argument is with the analogy of 10 people making pies. The theory is that the poorest guy, who would get 1% of the 5,000 pies made in a capitalist economy, is better off than that same guy getting an equal 10% share of the only 100 pies made in a communist society. Capitalism's free market is akin to the Darwinian jungle. In the jungle the strong kill the weak and species die out. In contrast, in every just democracy every citizen is endowed with equal rights & powers (voting). But these two concepts are inherently at odds (which isn't entirely bad). Equality is simply not Darwinian. Let's escape the metaphor and return to political reality. Capitalism is preferable to the extent it is more productive balanced by one's concept of equality and fairness. A Libertarian wants as much freedom with a minimum of "government redistribution". A Totalitarian Communist values equality so strongly that rights, freedom and productivity are sacrificed. Depending on one's values and principles one places oneself somewhere on that spectrum. This is all well tread ground. With this foundation established, let's get to my take on "Productive Wealth". Hypothetical: Zeke constructs a new 4-story building (to hold 16 tenants) in an up and coming neighborhood for $2 million in costs. It was estimated to last for at least 40 years without major repairs. Yanni the real estate developer sees the climbing prices and offers Zeke 3 million dollars with he takes. Zeke has just made a 1 million dollar profit that is part of the GDP. Yanni then spends $500k leveling the building so he can erect a 10-story building (at a cost of 4 million dollars) which will hold 50 tenants for at least 40 years. Yanni has thus spent $7.5 million when Xena comes along and offers $10 million which Yanni accepts (making a $2.5 million profit which adds to the GDP). Xena then sells each of the 50 units for $300k each totaling $15 million (for a $5 million profit). Now let's look at the macro economics. On the same parcel of land $8.5 million in profit was made while $6.5 million was spent in the local economy in construction and leveling and construction again. The non-money productivity result (aka "productive wealth") was 50 housing units that would last for 40 years. So it cost $6.5 million in non-profit costs to build 2000 "housing unit years". Which translates to $3,250 per housing unit year. Nothing particularly unusual about this situation.

But consider the alternative. If Zeke's 4-story building were left standing and Yanni built his 10-story building somewhere else then $500k in demolition costs could have been saved and another 640 "housing unit years" (16 units times 40 years) would have existed. This would have resulted in a per housing unit year cost of only $2,273 (= $6 million / 2640). A free market proponent would validly argue that the individuals involved made their own choices and that's exactly what "freedom" is. However, the net result in productivity is the same. Because of the free market these individuals were allowed to make choices that were NOT optimally productive nor efficient. Less "pie" was created. This is contrary to the fundamental benefit of capitalism, its productivity and efficiency.

"Productive Wealth" is profit that results in a larger pie (independent of how that pie is distributed). Zeke's venture created "p*wealth". Yanni's venture also yielded p*wealth but subtracting the "destroyed wealth" of demolishing Zeke's building Yanni's net p*wealth created was 1360 building unit years (=2000 - 640). Xena's business dealings yielded no p*wealth but did create profit. My conclusion is that a GDP that considers only profit (and not p*wealth) vastly distorts the true view of the economics as it practically applies to people. A quick second example: One has "personal music player needs". If one pays $200 for an iPod and it lasts 4 years then one is paying $50 per year. If Apple decides to make the iPod shoddier so that it will likely break after 2 years then Apple could potentially sell twice as many iPods. Hopefully the market wouldn't let that happen because such a drop in quality should result in less sales. However, consider the flip side. What is Apple's incentive to create an iPod that lasts 5 years or 10 years? "Planned Obsolescence" is common description of this dynamic. It ties directly into my concept of p*wealth. If iPods were made more durable the labor wasted on re-making the personal music player could have been used creating more p*wealth. Just like not destroying Zeke's building.

Money is Not Speech

“Money is Not Speech”: I know the argument against campaign finance reform is that the Supreme Court declared money to be tantamount to speech and thus protected under the first amendment. That’s wrong. Here’s my proof:

1) Bribery is giving money in exchange for political influence.

2) Bribery is wrong & illegal.

3) Speaking to politicians can influence their politics.

4) Speaking to politicians must not only be legal but is necessary in a democracy.

5) If “money is speech” then giving money to influence politics would have to be legal (q.v. “Transitive Property”). But that conflicts with point 2) Bribery is wrong & illegal. Therefore “Money is Not Speech”. QED.

One cannot simultaneously contend that “bribery is illegal” and “money is speech”.

Someone intent on believing that “money is speech” and therefore that there should be no controls on it (on first amendment grounds) should be intellectually consistent and simply accept that bribery should be legal. Good luck on that.

And let me also make the obvious case for why bribery should be considered wrong & illegal. If it’s ok to bribe then there would be a bidding war for every money-related vote. Why should a politician vote for a billion dollar pork-project to go to Briber “A” when Briber “B” is willing to give a bigger bribe? Then all political votes would be vulnerable to being solely at the discretion of the bribe-market. When would a politician ever vote for the environment or the poor? And now let’s play this scenario out to its logical conclusion. With a trillion dollar government budget at stake the bribes could easily exceed billions of dollars. Conceivably, the biggest corporations could buy up all of the media companies (TV, radio, print, internet) and never report (or minimize the reporting) of the rampant bribery so that the electorate would never know the truth. Now we don’t want that scenario. Do we? Or do we already have it?

Invention is dreaming followed by problem-solving.

Invention is dreaming followed by problem-solving.

Everyone dreams. Some people do have more practical dreams than others. The real work is in the problem-solving. My favorite basic process of invention: 1) Identify the problem. Isolate the variables to determine the specific problem to be addressed. 2) Question the most basic assumptions. Explore radically different new assumptions in as many directions as you can brainstorm. Maybe the problem can be solved by asking a different question. 3) Question the current solutions. Explore different ways to solve the problem. Brainstorm new solutions without regard to practicality. 4) Now evaluate your solutions practically. Do cost-benefit analysis on all of your alternate solutions. Make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease. 5) Implement your best solution and then do a post-mortem. Evaluate your solution's effectiveness to better solve the next set of problems. Go back to step 1 and repeat.

Thoughts for Democrats #4 - “Greedy Grafters” not “Special Interests”

Stop calling them “Special Interests”. It’s not pejorative enough.

I propose calling them “Greedy Grafters”.

Everyone intuitively thinks they have special interests. So “Special Interests” sounds like you could be referring to them.

Whereas “Greedy Grafters” sounds as bad as they are and has the marketing benefit of alliteration.

2nd New Format for Political Talk Shows - "Honesty Contract" & Contest

Another way to make political talk shows better would be to have an "Honesty Contract". Guests & Hosts would be required to sign the contract with the following conditions. 1. I promise to tell the truth and not to lie (intentionally deceive through falsehood). If it can be proven that I lied then I promise to apologize on-camera ASAP (within 48 hours) and correct the misapprehension. If that is not possible then I promise to give my apology via voicemail ASAP (within 48 hours) to be used until I make my on-camera apology. 2. I promise to provide a reasonable context so as not to "weasel" (selectively tell the truth so as to mislead). If it can be proven that I lied then I promise to apologize on-camera ASAP (within 48 hours) and correct the misapprehension. If that is not possible then I promise to give my apology via voicemail ASAP (within 48 hours) to be used until I make my on-camera apology. With "weasels", I understand that I will be allowed to make my properly contextualized new argument. 3. If it can be proven that I made an substantial error of fact (not opinion), I promise to apologize on-camera ASAP (within 48 hours) and correct the misapprehension. If that is not possible then I promise to give my apology via voicemail ASAP (within 48 hours) to be used until I make my on-camera apology. 4. If I break any of the above 3 points without taking the proper steps to correct them then I will pay the ACLU (insert charity/non-profit here) the amount of $10,000.00 within 60 days. If I do not pay that amount within 60 days then I will have to pay additional fees of $1,000.00 per day until I have paid it off. 5. If I don't break any of the above rules then I will be eligible for the show's "Honesty Contest" where the person who tells the most truths without lying while also correcting all "weasels" and errors will win the grand prize (of $100,000.00). Signed X____________________________

New Format for Political Talk Shows - "Vetting Graphics"

There should be a new format for viewing vetted political talk shows. These "vetted talk shows" would always be tape-delayed to allow for research/corroboration. Whenever someone says something that is provably true it is highlighted with a green icon graphic and the website for corroboration. Whenever someone says something that is provably ambiguous (valid points in both directions) it is highlighted with a yellow icon graphic and the websites for corroboration. And whenever someone says something that is demonstrably false it is highlighted with a red icon graphic and the website for corroboration. In this way viewers would better be able to process the information.

Thoughts for Democrats #3 - Better Define the word "Lie"

The old definition of a "Lie" is a falsehood with the intent to mislead. But there's no objective way to know intent. More importantly, if you're trying to convince a voter that someone he has voted for in the past has "lied" then you're implicitly saying that the voter is a bad judge of character. The voter has implicitly emotionally endorsed the liar and to expose that arouses cognitive dissonance. There's an "emotional inertia" dynamic working against the accuser. THE NEW (PROPOSED) DEFINITION OF A "LIE": A stated falsehood that benefits the speaker without subsequently correcting it. Full Definition: A statement that is substantially false where the resulting misapprehension benefits the speaker/writer without a subsequent, commensurate follow-up to correct the misapprehension and prevent its repetition. This new definition has three objective criteria. 1) Falsehood (if it's true then it can't be a lie by definition) 2) Benefiting the speaker (otherwise it's simply an error) 3) Lack of subsequent correction (this is the requisite reckless disregard for the truth. But if there is a bona fide correction and prevention of its repetition then you can grant the benefit of the doubt and not call it a lie). All three criteria can be independently determined without "reading someone's mind". With this new definition calling something a lie is objectively provable. Consequently, no one can be rightly offended if the objective criteria are proven. Therefore, we can call some Republicans liars without offending their base.

Thoughts for Democrats #2 - Deputize Everyone

"Deputize Everyone" - It's not just "every vote counts" or even "vote or die". But rather make everyone a Democratic Deputy. Anyone who has worked at a volunteer organization knows that those with the least responsibility flake the most. Those given more responsibility will often flake but you'll still get much more done. So let's give everyone more responsibility. Hand out dollar-bill sized slips of paper (that people can save in their wallets & purses) with the following words: --------------------------------------------------------------- Side A Thank you for working as a "Democratic Deputy". To make sure we win, it's your responsibility to make sure that every single Democrat you know votes. Here's why: (list provocative reasons & facts with websites for corroboration) --------------------------------------------------------------- Side B List the Democrats you know and check off what gets done. My Democrats: ---------------Conversation? / Registered? / Voted? 1) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 2) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 3) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 4) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 5) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 6) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 7) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 8) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 9) ____________________ -------------- / ------------ /------- 10) ___________________ -------------- / ------------ /-------

Thoughts for Democrats #1 - Iraqi Casino

Frame the debate about the war as the "Iraqi Casino". Sure it would be great to come out a winner. But when you're losing more each day (with the same strategy) it's time to leave before you lose even more. Because maybe it's a rigged/crooked game that can't be beat.